Libyan Air Force

By: ink - 1st March 2001 at 00:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: The message that didn't came through...

Although I know very little about the Su-32/34 Tom, I do know that the toilet is a chemical one. What about the water supply, please enlighten us all.

By: Tom - 1st March 2001 at 00:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Here we go...

Nelson,
sorry: I really can't tell you anything else, but, read my posts before saying some things.

In your post #2 you propose Libyans to buy (between others) 10 Tu-22M, 40 Mig-29 SMT, 60 Mig-A/T, 10 Be-200, 5 Il-78 and 3 A-50E. That's six (including the Il-78 in your opinion) different types which they don't have (i.e. "new types"). Then you come to criticise me for saying that Libyans will most probably buy "one or two" (post #5) versions of Su-27s, and that you proposed "only one" (MiG-29SMT).

How do you call that: kidding or babbling?

Now, "the message that didn't get through" was, that, according to their experiences from the last eleven years, I can hardly believe, that Libyans would go for six new different types, or that they will start to modernize any of the 15 to 30 years old types currently at hand, except the well proven MiG-25PDS. They will - as Elp "simply" remarked it - most probably replace ALL THE OTHER ten or so types now is service with one or two versions of the Su-27. Forget Su-22s, Mirages, Tu-22Bs (which - I repeat - are not in service since years any more), MiG-23s and others.

Why even think about the short-ranged MiG-29SMT, if it costs almost as much as an Su-27 which is far more suitable for Libyan circumstances? What should they do with ten Be-200s?

Call me "offensive" because I try to talk about this topic in a serious manner. Yet, consider also the following: I can understand, Nelson, that you don't have the slightest clue about the fact, that - just for example - the operational doctrine of the LARAF/LAJAF never included the CAS. That role was given to SF.260s and Mi-24s, used by the LARAA/LAJAA (Army Aviation).

I can also understand, that you can't know, that there are hardly more than 55 MiG-23MFs left with the LAJAF out of some 155 MiG-23MS/MFs and 20 MiG-23BNs delivered 1977 thru 1981, after at least five were lost during the war with Egypt in 1977, at least 50 were donated to Syria in 1982 to replace losses from fighting over Lebanon, ten were donated to Sudan and additional examples sold to Zimbabwe, while others were lost in operational accidents.

I can understand, that you expect nobody else to have a clue about the current condition of the LAJAF - because you don't, and also, that you don't know, that two Il-78s were delivered - together with six (not 15) Su-24s (which were brought aboard several An-22 transports) - in March 1989 to the Umm Atitiqah AB. If you like, call that a product of my imagination, but please,

read my posts - or ignore them completely and don't bother answering them at all.

Regards
Tom
reach out and touch

PS And, reg. the "toilet-question": well, go and ask the first Moslem why do they need the water there.... Not knowing about that only shows the lack of knowledge for local circumstances.

By: ink - 1st March 2001 at 00:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: Here we go...

Tom, ofcourse (the toilet thing)! I totally forgot about that! Then again, how strict are Lybians about that sort of thing? I know muslims in the UK and in Yugoslavia who are perfectly okay with normal toiletary habits.

By: Rosco - 1st March 2001 at 01:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: SMT legs

Tom:

The MiG-29SMT has an air combat radius almost as great as the Flanker, at 830nm versus 900. It could certainly serve as far more than a mere point defence machine. The MiG may indeed be only a "little" cheaper to buy but is considerably cheaper to operate and far easier to maintain, a matter of no small importance for a Third World state.

By: stormrider - 1st March 2001 at 02:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: SMT legs

LAST EDITED ON 01-Mar-01 AT 02:33 AM (GMT)[p]

hmm seems I am already a bit late.....with some ideas I can agree with ,well anyway here is my humble opinion of the equipment Libyan airforce should have
72 Su37 for air defence,incuding training 2 seaters
80 JAS 39 gripens for tactical airdefence/CAS/Antiship..etc(multirole)With the AAR cap, also incuding trainig two seaters.
40 su24 upgraded with new avionics/ECM etc
12 SU24for recon/12 for EW
AEW 6 A50 with datalinks to all front line combat types and vice versa
tankers at least 12 IL76 tankers
k8 trainers
PC 9 prop trainers
Transport IL76 upgraded 16 would do
another 20 G222 would be nice
10 LRMP,May would do (med sea)

As for the rest of the jets boneyard or become target drones,

Anyway ,as guys here have stated before, I kept it to 3 main combat types to reduce logsitical problems and also minimise other support cost .I choose to keep the su24 becos it is still worthy for the role and the libyans are familiar with it.

JAS 39 ,I see it as an execellant tatical fighter to replace the Mig21 ,which infact fufill the same role in some ways and the JAS39 can also fullfill more roles including attack and recon,as well as being suited for off base deployement,Cheap and easy to maintain, as well as low runnin cost.
Su37,the best single seat fighter the russians can provide presently.
k8 trainers capable and cheap for the role and a fellow muslim country Pakistan is involved in it as well as Eygpt .
Anyway I prefer mainly single seat types, Su37 and Jas39 becos personnel are getting more expensive to both train and retain these days.

By: Dead1 - 1st March 2001 at 02:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: SMT legs

Firstly hasn't Libya only got a population of about 4 - 5 million? Can a country with such a small population really maintain an airforce of several hundred aircraft. I know the IDF/AF managed to do this, but Israel and Libya are in two totally different strategic environments. Israel was and still is to a certain extent surrounded by hostile countries hell bent on Israel's destruction. Libya is surrounded mainly by Arab countries and poor African countries. The strategic threat is not that huge.

Secondly most of the Libyan Air Force is supposed to be in storage as previously noted. Therefore a one-on-one replacement scheme is rather daft.

And also the Tu-22's operated by Libya don't have much in common with the Tu-22M except a similar designation.

Anyway here are my proposals for Libya:
40 Mig-25 - replace with Su-27/3OMKK
75 Mig-23 - scrap/sell
50 Mig-21 - scrap/ sell
30 Mirage F1 - replace with Su-27/30MKK
40 Mirage 5 - scrap/sell
12 Su-24MK - acquire additional modernised examples including Su-24MR.
6 Tu-22 (bomber) - scrap
80 G2AE Galeb - replace with modern trainers (e.g. MIG-AT)
120 SF.260WL warrior - upgrade
16 G.222 - upgrade
18 Il-76 - upgrade with modern avionics, upgrade 6-8 to tankers

By: stormrider - 1st March 2001 at 02:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: SMT legs

LAST EDITED ON 01-Mar-01 AT 03:00 AM (GMT)[p]

well let just say the libyans start to think like the Israelis militarily/and build the infrastructure required (well after the beating they got over lebenon...and the wars before) , only a modern, well trained and comparitively modern equipped force that can you only HOPE of rivaling IDF/AF .
And being able to rival them in their airforce in my view is what many muslims aspire to see nowadays.Though in the old days it was regaining the land lost.

By: Tom - 1st March 2001 at 02:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Another one going down in flames...

Nelson,
OK, I'm ignorant. And now your answers:

"I would not consider the Tu-22M a "new type" since Libya has already operated 8 eraly models of Tu-22."

Besides now that you don't know the number of Tu-22Bs delivered to Libya, but, can you tell me more about "similarities" between the Tu-22B and Tu-22M? Could you - please - be so kind to explain me how to hell should Libyans "know" Tu-22M so well if they never saw any? Ever heard something abut pilots/crews "current" on some aircraft or qualified to fly it?

"I would consider the Be-200, and the Mig-29SMT "new types" but they are not complex types that you stated in your post #5.."

Be-200 and MiG-29SMT are not "complex types"?

"Why are my types new and complex systems but your types are not??"

Ever heard about Angolan and Ethiopian AF flying Su-27s?

"Since you think you are always right and no one else has the "slightest clue" about any facts that dont reimburse your facts just makes you look ignorant and foolish."

When did I ever said I'm always right and no one else has the slightest clue?

"If you show me in any of my posts that I made a comment about CAS I will not post on this threa (that I started) anymore. So why are you bringing up the CAS role??"

(Post #14) "Mig-23 (upgrade and keep them as a secondary attack aircraft)"

So, that much about you posting on this thread: I call that one a "confirmed kill"...

But, you know what's worst of all? You really can't read, Nelson: "So they don't have any Mig-23 left, oh well, no big deal."

This is, namely, what I said:

"I can also understand, that you can't know, that there are hardly more than 55 MiG-23MFs left with the LAJAF out of some 155 MiG-23MS/MFs and 20 MiG-23BNs delivered 1977 thru 1981..."

Yet, this is your "serious", "mature" and "educated" summary:
"Again you are just acting ignorant and foolish because not every single person agrees with you or your facts."

Yes, I'm "acting ignorant and foolish".... because - you're completely clueles about the Libyan Air Force?

Regards
Tom
reach out and touch

By: stormrider - 1st March 2001 at 06:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: SMT legs

'they' here refer to the arabs/muslims .

By: fantasma_337 - 1st March 2001 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: Another one going down in flames...

Sorry to interrupt here, I just wanted to say that a Lybian Mig-23 ( version?) defected to Greece in 1989 and landed in Maleme Airfiled due to fuel exhaustion but overshot the runway and was written off .The pilot came out of the a/c safe. During its course it was intecepted by 2 115PM A-7H's armed only with 2 AIM-9(P?) Anyone knows where it is now?

By: Tom - 1st March 2001 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

No problem with touching and tearing it appart...

LAST EDITED ON 01-Mar-01 AT 05:53 PM (GMT)[p]Nelson,
I don't know why do you need it to show your lack of understanding and knowledge about aviation, but, I don't have a slightest problem with being described as "ignorant" for kicking your butts when you babble nonsense.

So, you'll use "your" MiG-23 for resuming attack missions if all of "your" Su-24s were shot down?

This is a statement wort of a teenager without any sense for reality. Still, then comes even better: "I would never use the Mig-23 as a CAS platform anyway because it is not fitted for that role."

You can't even write "MiG" properly, thus it's probably too much if I ask you if the MiG-23 is equipped for CAS/attack or not? Can you make your decision, or do you always try to turn facts as they suit you in the moment?

But, OK. I'll start now another try of "acting ignorant" and explain you some stuff about the basic ideas behind the LARAF/LAJAF, and its connections to Tu-22Bs and Su-24s.

As first, the topic of Iraqis and Libyans being permitted by Soviets to purchase Tu-22Bs (and later Su-24s) has to be seen from two different aspects. The first is purely political, and has to do with such terminology like "potential capabilities", "force in being", "deterrent" etc. Regardless of so many negative experiences, the political - and traditional - thinking still heavily influences the military decision-making in most Arabic air forces down to the tactical level. It is not in the nature of Arab military leaders to organize comprehensive campaigns: their nature are ligh ops of bedouin cavalry. Swift, with easily reachable targets, striking at weakpoints of enemy defense.

In this sense, Tu-22s (and Su-24s) are ideal aircraft for Arab air forces. However, only the second reason for the purchase of these aircraft has something to do with military/practical logic, namely, with the fact, that both Libya and Iraq are huge countries, which "needed" a long-range strike capability.

The first two Tu-22Bs (BTW, Tu-22B is not an "early version", as you described it, but one of the latest versions of the Tu-22, the Tu-22B has also nothing in common with the Tu-22M, except a good part of its official designation) were delivered to Iraq in late 1973 and first Libyan examples followed shortly after. By 1977 both countries got 14 Tu-22Bs and two Tu-22Us, respectivelly.

While both countries used Blinders intensively in several different conflicts (Libyans, for example, in Uganda and Chad, Iraqis against Iran), their main purpose was to give their enemies a signal of kind: "Look what I have: I can bomb you with my swift and lethal Tu-22s if you don't like me". Thus, most of initial operations were undertaken by single aircraft flying high and fast: initially such operations were rather power projections than effective combat missions. While this changed subsequently - and from the mid-'80s most missions were flown in pairs and trios - the nature of operations flown by Blinders always remained the same: their targets were industrial objects, airfields and cities, but the effects of these missions were rather of propagandistical nature.

Whenever a Libyan or Iraqi Tu-22 was shot down (and many were shot down), powerfull political protests followed and their operations were cancelled for the time being. Regardless of Libya loosing the fierce fighting in Chad, or Iraq being brought on the verge of military collapse against Iran in 1986, Tu-22s were never used to their limits. The reason for this was again the same: they were more usefull as "force in being".

Now, why am I explaining you something you will most probably not be able to read, not to talk about understanding it?

Well, not because you "must" trust me (I don't care if you do or not), or because "I'm better then you" (I also don't care being "better" than anybody else in anything I'm doing). But, in a try to make you clear all the aspects about which you seem to be completely clueless.

In the case of the Libyan AF the reason is, that both - the Libyan and the Iraqi AF - replaced their Tu-22Bs by Su-24s from late '80s. Regardless of new aircraft, the reason for these purchases was exactly the same as in the case of Tu-22s: threat, deterrent etc. The tactic of Su-24 operations should've been the same (i.e. deployments in pairs and trios), with the difference, that Sukhois were equipped with more modern avionics and EW-systems, got stand-off weapons and were capable of automatic TFR-flights over almost the same range as Tu-22s.

Now, the terminus for the type of operations undertaken by Tu-22s and Su-24s is "interdiction/strike", not "attack".

For all these reasons, "Nelson the Untouchable", there is a whole series of problems with almost any of the WORDS used in your sentences.

1.) Just like in the case of Tu-22Bs - which were foremost used for power-projections, by flying effective interdiction strikes - Libyans would never do something that stupid like "loose all their Su-24s". The simple fact, that you came to such an idea shows how clueless you are. After a loss of one or two aircraft, they would stop their operations. Period.

2.) Do you know, Nelson, what does it means to "loose all" aircraft of a certain type? What does it means to loose even one aircraft? One pilot? One technician? Ever tought about pilots flying "all your lost Su-24s"? About a potential political worth of these aircraft being intact even if they don't move out of their HAS? Do you have any ideas what is the terminology the kind of "power projection", "force in being" or "deterrent factor" being used for?

3.) The terminus "attack" is undetermined under circumstances you described: either you "strike" (in the West, this means use nukes), or "interdict" (basically: operate against targets deeper inside the hostile airspace and behind the front) or are "attacking" enemy ground troops, i.e. giving "tactical air support" (including CAS).

Excellent examples for such terminology can be taken from the Indian Air Force, which, during the '70s, asked for two types of aircraft:

a) DPSA = Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft (aircraft capable to penetrate at low level, strike at targets over 300 miles inside hostile territory and has self-defence capabilities): the result was the purchase of Jaguar Int./Shamsher. The MiG-23BN was refused, because it neither possessed the warload-range capability, nor the sophistication in attack management, nor self-defence capabilities.

b) TASA = Tactical Air Support: the result was the purchase of MiG-23BN, because this project was less demanding on warload-range capabilities, and asked foremost for accurate weapons delivery and supersonic capability at low level.

4.) Under circumstances described in point 3, the plain idea of using "MiG-23" - in what you understand under "attack" - as replacement for the Su-24 (interdiction/strike and not CAS aircraft) is a complete nonsense.

5.) If the "MiG-23" (which version, BTW? MiG-23BN is a specialized "attack"-version) is not equipped for CAS, then you should explain me three points:

a) why have Soviets used their MiG-23MLs for CAS missions in Afghanistan for years?

b) why are Angolans using their MiG-23MLs (and never even tought about buying MiG-23BNs) for CAS missions since 15 years?

c) why is the MiG-23MF/ML capable of being armed with all the same air-to-ground weapons like the initial MiG-23BN?

6.) And, finally, just in order to be sure: can you comprehend and do you actually understand what I'm talking about?

Regards
Tom
reach out and touch

PS Fantasma, I heard two different versions about the whereabout of that MiG-23MF (pilot Sqn.Ldr. Al Gabui, was granted political asyl): the first was that the plane was returned to Libya (I don't remember exactly, but I think this is what the Air International reported at the time), the second that it is still on Crete.

By: Tom - 1st March 2001 at 18:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: SMT legs

Rosco,
sorry, regardless of the source, I don't buy the story about the 850nm range of the MiG-29SMT. That would need a hellouva larger tanks that the airframe has and put it into the F-14/Tornado F.Mk.3 class interceptors. I also stay with what is known: memories of all MiG-29-equipped air forces are full of negative experiences and problems of technical nature, some of which could be solved only after considerable rebuilding and modifying of aircraft.

Theoretically: yes, the Libyans could buy MiG-29SMTs, but then they would need more tankers. That's not a solution: they couldn't ever use MiG-21s because these were short-legged either. The only recent purchase of MiG-29s is the Indian buy of MiG-29Ks for well known reasons: the question of space on Gorshkov, which could take almost 50% less Su-27Ks aboard.

Besides, the main point of Libyans having tankers is to enable their strike aircraft to reach Israel (or some other places in Africa), not to refuel their defensive interceptors.

I agree in particular with Dead1's list: scrap/sell everything else, and buy Su-27&CO: that eases the supply and maintenace basis, training, armament and spares compatibility etc. As already mentioned, I'm dropping the Su-24 solution for practical reasons: they are not in production any more, and Su-32s (and likes) offer much more flexibility and even increased capabilities.

Storm,
regardless of their experiences, while I highly doubt, that Libyans would ever start to think about military matters the way Israelis do, I consider them - especially in the case if they really buy a certain number of certain kind of aircraft - as one of most dangerous enemies of Israel. Namely, the main LAJAF's enemy remains Israel (thus, the most important objective is the capability of striking targets inside Israel), the other two secondary strategical tasks are spreading the Libyan influence in Africa and the defence of Libya.

Thus, there is a considerable chance, that what you talked about will happen, at least to a certain degree. I.e. most probably they will lessen the number of available aircraft considerably, replacing the quantity for quality. This would enable a concentration of available assets and creation a much better trained and equipped force, capable of penetrating Israeli airspace even from the West (i.e. from the sea), before going on and landing in Syria.

Consider two strike packages of 20 Libyan Su-30MKs, some of them equipped with additional ECM-equipment, others with Kh-31s - and likes - remaining armed with such modern Russian weapons like R-77s or R-33s, battling Israeli AWACS and EW assets, while the third package - another 20 aircraft - uses the situation and goes for Tel Aviv or Haifa....

Regards
Tom
reach out and touch

By: mercurion - 1st March 2001 at 19:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Libyan Air Force Modernisation

A fun idea, but very academic. The money would best be spent on pilot and ground crew training and avionics upgrades. We have all seen time and time again how the best equipment in the world is useless without the employment of sound strategy, tactics, and training. Most so-called "developing" countries seem to sacrifice training for hardware in trying to do what they can with limited budgets. It depends also on what Colonel Guadaffi's new agenda is. If he plans to reconcile with the West, he would do well to buy from the West. If he wants to be staunchly independent then Chinese or second-hand Russian from a non-aligned nation is going to give him fresh equipment with no strings attached. Buying brand-new Russian equipment doesn't necessarily make political sense, but it would if sheer numbers were his main priority.
If I were his military advisor, I would suggest force rationalisation and more training.
East: Mig 29 latest variant/IL-76/An-70/L-59/Tucano
West: F-16 or Mirage 2000-5/MB339 or L-59/Rooivalk/UH-60/SH-60 or Super Puma/C-130J/Tucano
Non Aligned: Upgrade existing equipment with new engines and avionics or use latest Chinese jets (K-8 etc)
Pipe Dream Despot: MiG 31/Tu22M-3/Su35/Su24/Mi26/Rooivalk/IL-76/An-70/Yak 140/Tucano.

By: ogini - 1st March 2001 at 19:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: Libyan Air Force Modernisation

Libyan F-16's, Black Hawks or Hercules II? why don't you recomend some JSFs or F-22s? Forget it, at least not while Qaddafy is still in power. Although you do make some interesting points in obtaining some western equimpent.
Brazil would be an excellent source, as they have sold Libya armement before (EE-9 Cascavel, EE-11 Urutu and Avibras MLRS). Tucanos and Super Tucanos would be excellent, maybe together with some 3 or 4 EMB-145AEW. This combination would certainly boost Libya's capability to patrol its vast borders with a semi-sofisticated lightweight fighter. They could be armed with MAA-1 or Piranha AAMs. AMX fighters from Brazil and/or Italy would also be an excellent acquisition to replace Su-22s and Mirage F-1s. A Russian upgrade to the Mi-24 fleet and some Rooivalks from South Africa (without Israeli missiles of course).
I wouldn't relly on the Chineese on fighters, maybe a joint production of K-8s with Egypt could help build a local aerospace industry.

By: Arthur - 1st March 2001 at 21:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk...

LAST EDITED ON 01-Mar-01 AT 09:35 PM (GMT)[p]Nelson,
Tom has already pointed out pretty well how far away from reality you are here, but i just can't resist this one:

"I would not consider the Tu-22M a "new type" since Libya has already operated 8 eraly models of Tu-22"

Oh, pleeeezzzze! Would you consider gathering some BASIC knowledge on military aircraft before you post idiocy like this on any forum? I know i am now trying to knock on a very thick board in front of your skull, but the knowledge you seem to be so proud about isn't all that accurate.

Even the Sovminavpro knew the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M were completely different aircraft. Would that mean you are the last of the ignorants? Perhaps you should be preserved then...

Tom,
You forgot to mention that a Tu-22B isn't necessarily a Tu-22B. The preproduction series of ten Blinders were designated as such, but later this designation was taken up again by the modified Tu-22R aircraft that were offered for export in the early 1970s. Of course, Lybia and Iraq recieved their Tu-22Bs which were only structurally similar to the original Tu-22B series but had different avionics.

Regards,

Arthur

By: stormrider - 2nd March 2001 at 01:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: SMT legs

LAST EDITED ON 02-Mar-01 AT 01:57 AM (GMT)[p]

well I choose to keep Su24 mainly becos of cost/effectiveness in (just being stingy):) (su30mk is better)
You see I am thinking of utillising ex russian examples in good condition and then upgrade them.
Well F111 is rather old as well, with some upgrades it will do nicely.
I consider long range sustained low level missions as quite important/demanding both day and night.So I wish to keep the long range attack roles reserved for more attack trained pilots (I wish to keep the libyan pilots flying long range missions more to single role cause....a step at a time .long range multi role missions is quite demanding,so Su24 will do.

Working in conjuction with Su 37 which will give aircover
The Su24 will do the SEAD/Recon and then the strike itself.
JAS39(multi role) supporting them in their roles if needed
With the A50 providing the situational awarness.
And tankers to make it all possible

While Jas 39 will do home air defence(swedish style)
a combantion of airdefence tactics ,Su37 do CAP (tankers would be necesary) ,JAS39 do rapid reaction intercept at dispersed locations(basicly sustained capping is expensive) guided by land radar and AEW

While /CAS/BAI/battlefied air sup/ to JAS39 thanx to its off base cap/abilty to be closer to the front .And also anti ship strike with RBS 15 complementing the su24, as well as tatical recc.

Anyway IDF/AF is quite big , it has both quantity and quality..... libya alone cannot stand up to it even with new equipment/improved training.....(working with Eygpt taticaly is very sound)And IDF/AF has the advantage of concentrated assets
against widely dispersed arab states.(you can't concentrate your assets to defend a given sector) and coordination of widely saparated forces is difficult to say the least.(comms will be heavily affected if war happens again... IDF is smart)
So IDF/AF have the chance to concentrate its forces and individually defeat each opfor airforce indiviually and saparately.

so how to face IDF/AF ?
quality and quantity (in that order)
And being able to maintain local airsuperiority (PAF style)
without help from other countries.
A difficult and expensive task indeed.

By: mercurion - 2nd March 2001 at 16:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Have faith!

You underestimate the Colonel. There are many periods in history when nations and rulers have done complete turnarounds in their thinking or ideaology. Who could have predicted the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall? Egypt was once staunchly pro-Soviet and anti-Israeli. Now they have a peace accord with Israel and buy Western equipment, including a considerable force of F-16's. Yasser Arafat was once regarded as a terrorist by Israel and the West- now he is rightly seen as the leader of the Palestinians.
Colonel Guadaffi has indicated his desire to open dialogue with the West and has released the Lockerby terrorists for trial as a demonstration of his good faith. I believe both Iran and Libya will both take their place in the international community again- as did Germany after WWII, and it will be like they never left. Time heals........wait and see.